Let me set the picture. It's been a long night out with friends and the lights just came on at the bar. It's my cue to leave. I hop in a taxi, a male driver (a given) is trying to make idle small talk and glancing in his mirror at me while I'm taking a picture of his ID and texting it to my mom. You know in case I don't make it out of this car, the police can start their search with this guy.
I never tell them my real address. When I get out I walk slow, wait for the car to leave, then run up the block to my real house. Safe.
Taxis shouldn't be that complicated right?

Well according to recent STATS, over 6,000 women have reported sexual harassment and assault from uber drivers in the recent years. And those are only the ones reported!
Unsurprising, yet still disappointing, since only 5% of uber drivers are female. Oh and side note, only 1% of yellow cabs are driven by women.
But now, thanks to the brain of Stella Mateo, there is finally a stress free way for women to travel around the NYC, Long Island, and Westchester!
SheRide will debut in September and will be an all female taxi service. This means only females will work there and only females will be allowed to use the service.
It works exactly the same as uber, except you know, without the constant threat of sexual assault!
What do you guys think about this new service!?

well these are all great points ladies however I'm not hearing any convincing arguments about how its not discriminating to exclude everyone but women for a safer taxi service. what if statistically speaking we use the same arguments that you guys are using for say…. rental properties in an upscale location.for example a place close to schools, Highways, shopping etc…. now statistically speaking more black and Latino people commit crimes so using the same logic a certain rental property business can discriminate against blacks and Latinos using these same arguments and telling blacks and Latinos that they can use other rental properties who do include them but not in such a great location.
Also what about men who identify as women? what about Gay men? You would be excluding them (if I'm understanding Shannon's version of trans women meaning men who have or are in the middle of converting).
To me I think a good compromise would be if all taxi companies staryed hiring more women since they are statistically less prone for violence towards women and that way everyone benefits from having safer taxi can rides. what do you guys think?
PS I really appreciate your input and also would like to say regardless of what happens I do support this business but only have a question about how constitutional it is to exclude everyone but women from a safer alternative to today's current taxi services.

@djdoubl3up legally it's the same reason that it's not discriminatory for say, homeless shelters that cater to LGBT+ teens. That's a group that has a very specific need (there's a lot of homeless LGBT+ youth, and they need a shelter that doesn't have adults OR straight/cis people in their own age group because those are groups with very different needs) and in order for a shelter, with limited resources to provide for that need, they need to exclude other people. There are other shelters that people in those other groups can go to, and those are often shelters that the LGBT+ youth CAN'T go to, not because of verbatim discrimination (though lots of shelters DO discriminate and have staff that will turn trans and genderqueer kids away), but because those shelters simply are not safe for them. The same principle applies to this type of service. It exists because the spaces that are theoretically for everyone are in practice not accessible to everyone because no work has been done to make them safe for everyone.
Services are a little bit different from private properties, at least legally speaking. That being said rentals do discriminate against people that have a criminal record (not overtly, but it's way harder to get a lease if you have one). They also tend to discriminate against younger people. And there's still widespread mortgage discrimination against nonwhite people. The difference between those examples (which are wrong) and this car service is that this car service is providing a need that can only be filled by excluding a group whose needs are already being provided for elsewhere. Housing discrimination has no such protections.
And yes, trans women are included because they are women (the correct term is male-assigned at birth). Gay men are excluded because not being sexually attracted to women is no guarantee that someone will not assault one (sexual assault has been shown to have very little to do with attraction).
Like yeah, it would be nice if cabs were more proactive about hiring women (since they're about 2% of the drivers) or even just not hiring creeps, but they're not gonna. It's extremely difficult to become a cab driver (at least in NYC, I can't speak to other areas) and the cab companies profit from that. Sure, they *should* be responsible, but that would be work, and nobody's forcing them to. Why would they change they way they operate?

@djdoubl3up I don't have much to add to @shannonl5 because she always just takes the words right out of my mouth but just to sum it up, there really isn't a need for men to use this service because they have their choice of a million other cabs that are already working for them. It isn't discrimination when there is a specific need that has to be met for a group of people who aren't be protected in the socially standard form of transit.